Rong Ding, Sarah Cook, Philip W Stone, Dharun Srirathan, Yashwin Shyam, Ruhan Anand, Palaniappa Sudharshan, Jennifer K Quint
{"title":"在电子健康记录（EHR）中识别吸烟和电子烟状态的推荐代码清单的系统审查和发展。","authors":"Rong Ding, Sarah Cook, Philip W Stone, Dharun Srirathan, Yashwin Shyam, Ruhan Anand, Palaniappa Sudharshan, Jennifer K Quint","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S529563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vaping and smoking are important health behaviours associated with many diseases. Evaluating the association of smoking and vaping with diseases using electronic health record (EHR) data requires accurate codelists to determine smoking and vaping status. However, codelists used in studies are not always published or consistent between studies. It is important to develop standard codelists for use in future studies, and transparency is required to ensure consistency and standardization.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To provide an overview of the codes used in both peer-reviewed scientific literature and codelist repositories to identify smoking and vaping status in EHRs and derive a recommended codelist for use in EHRs to identify smoking and vaping status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publications (MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus) and codelist repositories (LSHTM Data Compass, OpenCodelists, and the HDR UK Phenotype Library) were searched from January 2010 to April 2024. All publications or codelist repositories with codes referring to smoking/vaping status were included in this review (search terms are further addressed in Supplementary Table 1). All codes were extracted to review the frequency and consistency between studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 100 codelists across different coding systems: 55 codelists from publications and 45 codelists from codelist repository entries. For vaping status, there were 23 codelists identified, 7 from publications, and 16 from codelist repositories. Only 10% of publications included codelists. A limited number of ICD codes were used, and more were reported using the Read or SNOMED CT codes. The codelists we subsequently developed were based on those found in the review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Very few studies have reported the use of codelists despite smoking status being a widely used variable in many publications, and vaping status is increasing. Using the information from the review, we derived codelists for smoking and vaping using a transparent methodology that can be used in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"17 ","pages":"753-764"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review and Development of Recommended Code Lists to Identify Smoking and Vaping Status in Electronic Health Records (EHR).\",\"authors\":\"Rong Ding, Sarah Cook, Philip W Stone, Dharun Srirathan, Yashwin Shyam, Ruhan Anand, Palaniappa Sudharshan, Jennifer K Quint\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CLEP.S529563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vaping and smoking are important health behaviours associated with many diseases. Evaluating the association of smoking and vaping with diseases using electronic health record (EHR) data requires accurate codelists to determine smoking and vaping status. However, codelists used in studies are not always published or consistent between studies. It is important to develop standard codelists for use in future studies, and transparency is required to ensure consistency and standardization.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To provide an overview of the codes used in both peer-reviewed scientific literature and codelist repositories to identify smoking and vaping status in EHRs and derive a recommended codelist for use in EHRs to identify smoking and vaping status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publications (MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus) and codelist repositories (LSHTM Data Compass, OpenCodelists, and the HDR UK Phenotype Library) were searched from January 2010 to April 2024. All publications or codelist repositories with codes referring to smoking/vaping status were included in this review (search terms are further addressed in Supplementary Table 1). All codes were extracted to review the frequency and consistency between studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 100 codelists across different coding systems: 55 codelists from publications and 45 codelists from codelist repository entries. For vaping status, there were 23 codelists identified, 7 from publications, and 16 from codelist repositories. Only 10% of publications included codelists. A limited number of ICD codes were used, and more were reported using the Read or SNOMED CT codes. The codelists we subsequently developed were based on those found in the review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Very few studies have reported the use of codelists despite smoking status being a widely used variable in many publications, and vaping status is increasing. Using the information from the review, we derived codelists for smoking and vaping using a transparent methodology that can be used in future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"753-764\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433228/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S529563\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S529563","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
电子烟和吸烟是与许多疾病相关的重要健康行为。使用电子健康记录（EHR）数据评估吸烟和电子烟与疾病的关系需要准确的医师来确定吸烟和电子烟的状态。然而，研究中使用的代码列表并不总是发表或在研究之间保持一致。为未来的研究开发标准代码列表是很重要的，并且需要透明度以确保一致性和标准化。目的：概述同行评议的科学文献和代码清单库中用于识别电子病历中吸烟和吸电子烟状态的代码，并得出电子病历中用于识别吸烟和吸电子烟状态的推荐代码清单。方法：检索2010年1月至2024年4月的出版物（MEDLINE、Embase和Scopus）和代码库（LSHTM Data Compass、OpenCodelists和HDR UK Phenotype Library）。本综述包括所有涉及吸烟/吸电子烟状态的出版物或代码清单库（检索词在补充表1中进一步说明）。提取所有编码，以审查研究之间的频率和一致性。结果：在不同的编码系统中有100个代码列表：55个代码列表来自出版物，45个代码列表来自代码列表库条目。对于vaping状态，确定了23个代码列表，7个来自出版物，16个来自代码列表存储库。只有10%的出版物包含编码人。使用的ICD编码数量有限，使用Read或SNOMED CT编码的病例较多。我们随后开发的代码清单是基于审查中发现的代码清单。结论：尽管吸烟状况是许多出版物中广泛使用的变量，但很少有研究报告使用codelist，并且电子烟状况正在增加。利用综述中的信息，我们使用透明的方法得出了吸烟和电子烟的codelists，可用于未来的研究。
Systematic Review and Development of Recommended Code Lists to Identify Smoking and Vaping Status in Electronic Health Records (EHR).
Introduction: Vaping and smoking are important health behaviours associated with many diseases. Evaluating the association of smoking and vaping with diseases using electronic health record (EHR) data requires accurate codelists to determine smoking and vaping status. However, codelists used in studies are not always published or consistent between studies. It is important to develop standard codelists for use in future studies, and transparency is required to ensure consistency and standardization.
Purpose: To provide an overview of the codes used in both peer-reviewed scientific literature and codelist repositories to identify smoking and vaping status in EHRs and derive a recommended codelist for use in EHRs to identify smoking and vaping status.
Methods: Publications (MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus) and codelist repositories (LSHTM Data Compass, OpenCodelists, and the HDR UK Phenotype Library) were searched from January 2010 to April 2024. All publications or codelist repositories with codes referring to smoking/vaping status were included in this review (search terms are further addressed in Supplementary Table 1). All codes were extracted to review the frequency and consistency between studies.
Results: There were 100 codelists across different coding systems: 55 codelists from publications and 45 codelists from codelist repository entries. For vaping status, there were 23 codelists identified, 7 from publications, and 16 from codelist repositories. Only 10% of publications included codelists. A limited number of ICD codes were used, and more were reported using the Read or SNOMED CT codes. The codelists we subsequently developed were based on those found in the review.
Conclusion: Very few studies have reported the use of codelists despite smoking status being a widely used variable in many publications, and vaping status is increasing. Using the information from the review, we derived codelists for smoking and vaping using a transparent methodology that can be used in future studies.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews.
Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews.
When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes.
The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
